Except that if Rafale C137, is the first production Rafale model F30-04T, then all of the above numbers are thrown into disarray.

Except if the radar is simply retrofitted…

Weren’t these five RBE2AAs supposed to be pre-production models? I assume that the “beginning of the production” in fact means full scale production for the 60 batch 4 examples!?

I ‘m not gonna put my neck under the axe and start to speak about the various techniques used by a system like Spectra to to jam ie : monopulse radars . I don ‘t know and I am not even sure that the Rafale pilots know the ins and outs , so me … 😮
Some rather technical papers and studies are talking about this much better than I could , to be honest . I have my own guess and it has nothing to do with active cancellation .

To cut it short, you don’t really know and base your guesses on what’s publicly available without any direct confirmation.

Dassault and Thalès have always been very shy to talk openly about Spetra but these recent years , they did let some infos leak into the public domain .

Given the amount of information available from public sources Thales and co. don’t appear to be any more shy than other manufacturers in that field.

They said that the system (since the F3 upgrade) is using more advanced components that the Aesa RBE2 (advanced GaN MIMIC vs GaAS for the radar) , which clearly say that the 3 active antennas have been replaced .
The system running the show has also been upgraded , CPUs , memory , data buses as well as the optical fiber wiring .
I don ‘t bookmark everything but links exist .

You want to tell us that you don’t save the links or at least possible documents to such important subjects? Where is the source suggesting that GaN technology is being incorporated right now? Such plans exist, but afaik they were slated for the 2015 time frame.

Now , if one with a bit of knowledge wants to have a rather quick look at some of Thalès patents , one will notice few interesting things with regard to DRFM , interferrometry and bragg cells :
http://www.faqs.org/patents/assignee/thales/

Some hints can be found on this study :
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/EN/RTO-EN-028///EN-028-09.pdf

Patents and studies unrelated to Spectra in the first place. Who says that every single study translated into operational systems or that every single technology discussed in that paper is actually implemented into Spectra? By that measure everyone can come up with studies which discuss this or that, that doesn’t prove availability of such. So you are once again speculating in the first place and present studies (which are also based on references from foreign sources) as given technologies for a system like Spectra.

I was wrong . Spectra stops at 20GHz . Also , it obviously doesn ‘t cover the whole lot .
It is taking care of the high VHF and UHF bands when asked but it is not the system ‘s usual mode . The pilot has no input on it , it is a pre-mission set-up . Don ‘t ask me where I get that from , you will not get any answer .
The system covers the following NATO bands :
C , D , E , I , J , Ku . That obviously include the X band (part of I and J bands) .
I can ‘t talk about technicals like what is the real bandwith covered in between each “jump” when following an adverse frequency hoping radar because it is classified but I trust Thalès on this .

For years you have been stating a frequency coverage of 200 MHz to 40 GHz with certainity, never citing any sources whatsoever, made silly unfounded claims about superiority just to back peddle years afterwards!? Once again you are not citing sources and insist on whatever sources… How serious can we take you at all? Btw Ku-band is the old band and actually part of J-band… Wonder where the F-band is either, not being covered?

Sorry ?
First , I sincerely believe that Spectra HAS some uniques capabilities .

You are free to believe what you want and maybe there are some unique technologies and capabilities with Spectra, doesn’t mean there aren’t technologies and capabilities within other systems of that kind, which aren’t incorporated in Spectra in return. Who knows? You obviously not!

Secondly , the entire system is ahead of any other ECM suite wrt the components used (active Aesa , GaN MIMICs , bragg cells) which are not part of some fighters like the F-22 , SU-35 , Typhoon , etc …
This is not “fanboy-ism” to name the components . Then , if you ‘re a bit in the fighter business you should know that the French ECMs are usualy very highly regarded within NATO . The M2000-5 ICMS suite is known to “pi$$ off any RWR/Radar around (!) and this ECM suite is rather old :p

But you aren’t doing much more than naming and listing components and technologies which you believe to be unique. Emphasis lies on believe. AESA jamming antennas aren’t unique, GaN TRMs any confirmation? Even they aren’t unique per se. Digital interferometric RWR/ESM systems aren’t unique to the French, as aren’t DRFMs, RWR/ESM system with range finding capabilities, laser warners, IR based missile warners etc. So ICMS has been pitted against “any” system in NATO? I mean any single radar etc.?

In fact , most of you don ‘t want to think , believe or accept that we are the best in the electronic counter mesures field . Like we are the best at making wines , cheeses , perfumes , clothes , giving the wife an orgasm :D, etc …

I don’t care whether the French are the “best” in that field or not. They are known for being quite good at EW stuff, no doubt and they are for sure among the best. Whether they are really the best, I don’t know. That you feel so as a French isn’t surprising, but unless you have unrestricted access to all the relevant data and information from all manufacturers/operators such superlative claims are just that, claims!

Fair call , or not ?.. :rolleyes:
What about managing the threats ? Threats libraries are one thing , interferrometry is one thing , but what about passive ranging ? What about autopilot planning “on the fly” ? What about choosing to jam to most lethal threat instead of the closest one ? Who ‘s deciding ? Who ‘s making the right choice ? The pilot because he/she sees the threat circles on the display(s) or the system ? How the automated functions are run ?
In few words , how good are the sensor fusion and the AI running the show ?

As said without unrestricted access you’ll never know. Only bits n pieces are released or in some cases leaked to the public. The absence of public information doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You are also contradicting yourself with the question
“What about choosing to jam to most lethal threat instead of the closest one ?”

First you want to tell us that no other system is capable of range finding, than you ask us about selection of the greatest, instead of nearest threat. If you can’t determine the distance of a threat emitter, how do you determine which is the nearest threat? Questions like this are a perfect demonstration that your arguments are based on flawed logic, incomplete knowledge and that they aren’t overly well thought through as well. As said passive ranging can be done in multiple ways and is not a Spectra unique capability. Basically every RWR/ESM with a range finding function is passive. Whether one system is more accurate than another or needs more time to get a fix on a threat emitters position is yet another question. Whether threat data are being used to “re-programme” the autopilot is yet a matter of integration. Dunno about any aircraft doing this, but it’s certainly not a big show stopper whatsoever and you have to take into account details like overlapping threats, fuel available etc. Where does the automatic avoidance of threat emitters come from anyway? Another secret source?

For one , I believe that Spectra brings a couple of new capabilities to help the pilot in his/her mission . We often talked about passive engagement , wich implies a passive ranging even against flying targets but only Dassault/Thalès are claiming to archive the trick :
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio/Defence/Aerospace_Product_SPECTRA/?pid=1568

At least the F-22 is reportedly capable of doing this. It still has its limitations. You don’t necessarily need range to do this at all, albeit it would help. But the firing solution is still constrained and MCG is hardly being offered by a passive device.

I agree !! But … In the first place , you said ? No .
First , you can try to hide within the fog of war with electronic means before the targeting . This is called active stealth . We ‘re not into DASS territory here …

Stop the arrogance and bull here. This isn’t necessarily “active stealth”. The enemy might well be aware of your presence, but he doesn’t know where you are and whether you are alone or not. This has nothing to do with DASS either. To hide into the fog of war you need to create it in the first place. Jamming enemy missile seekers is the last thing you do, first you try to avoid being targeted at all and that’s what ECMs were doing ever since their inception.

You built your knowledge of EW on what you read/hear about Spectra and some French developments in that field, mix up what you hear and draw conclusions on base of what you believe to know. But what you know is in fact incomplete and your conclusions are largely based on what you don’t know. You should study the subject bottom up and don’t start with the latest technology and try to derive conclusions from that. As said many of the technologies and capabilities you believe to be a first and unique are in fact neither.

SERVAL is in no way comparable to Spectra Scorpion and I am SURE that you know it .
SERVAL (from Jane ‘s) :

My fault, I misread SERVAL for several…

A very nice piece of kit but it doesn ‘t do half of what Spectra do .
Btw , one can note the channelised crystal video detector = Bragg cells . Yes , not superheterodynes like on the Typhoon 😀 and that was looong ago .

As already pointed out by others this is a very basic form of RWR technology, not unmatched hightech. You should do some research on the backgrounds of EW systems in general, instead of starting off with what you have read about Spectra and compare it to other systems you don’t know about in the most cases. Believing that modern RWRs may not even give an azimuth bearing or that ranging is possible with interferometric receivers only is a clear demostration that you aren’t overly aware off such systems at all! As said I’m not surprised that you believe that Spectra is some kind of upper alien technology.

True and I have never said that Spectra was unique for this task . But tell me , what other operational systems can do it and on what aircraft ? I am talking about sensor fusion here and not about RWR warning display 😉

INEWS on F-22, IDECM on F/A-18E/F blk II, FalconEdge of F-16 blk 60 or DASS on Typhoon for example. All are displaying threat emitters with their threat circles on situational awareness display formats.

Directed beams , well … Spectra has been the very first onboard ECM system to provide the capability to start with (if we leave aside the US B1 Lancer ECM suite miss) . Even today , very few aircraft have an Aesa jamming capability and nobody pushed the technology as far as the French did .

When I talk about Spectra being a medium stand-off range ECM system , I take onboard what I should call the overall “discretion” of the aircraft at range .
Spectra detection range is big because it needs to know ealier and act quicker to help the low observability concept by evading the threat first or to stealthily jamming it from long range when the aircraft ‘s RCS is still low for the adverse radar . It was again part of the blueprint .

You are merely speculating here. All non stealthy modern day fighters are being fitted with EWS for this purpose. It’s not a “special” requirement for the Rafale and its Spectra.

What we call “short-range” ECM systems are electronic suites designed to protect the fighter from already airborne threats like missiles by jamming the adverse radar ‘s tracking , the missile ‘s uplink or its seeker .

No that’s what YOU call short range systems. The idea of ECM is to prevent the enemy from targeting you in the first place in order to prevent the enemy from engaging you!

I always find it very hard to make people understand that Spectra is a different kind of fish in the ECM World . The components and the technology used are unique to start with , so the capabilities are underestimated .

In your world in the first place. No doubt Spectra is an excellent system and for sure one of the best of its kind, but concluding that all of its technology is unique and its capabilities are more or less unmatched is ignorant and either demonstrating that you are nothing by a full blown die hard fanboy and/or that you have absolutely no clue about the subject and developments, other than that of the French.

Yes Spectra can record detected emitters and their locations and might be able to store parameters unknown signals providing it with ELINT & SIGINT capabilities. It’s useful and indeed unusual for a tactical EWS. It’s nonetheless exaggerated to describe Spectra as being specifically designed for this job and assuming it will do just as well as systems which are really designed for the job might be a little bit far stretched as well.

We’re talking about Rafale’s ability to perform a first day strike within denied air space while providing protection for itself and other aircraft as been demonstrated by the strikes on the 19th of March 2011 or later when AdA refused US F-18G’s protection.

You stated that employment of the Rafale proves that SPECTRA’s SIGINT capabilities must be as good as that of ASTAC…

@Scorpion
You quoted this :

Nothing is as accurate as a laser , not even a suite like Spectra . As a pilot , I would trust a targeting pod over an ELINT suite .
Spectra was used to slew the Damoclès pod (or/and the OSF/radar) .
What you quote is not saying anything about Spectra , it is about the pod Scorpion .

What it may show is that the claims about SPECTRA alone being good enough to do the job in that way might not be true. Three times in a row it is repeatedly pointed out that the real targeting is done by other sensors, while SPECTRA provides a basket for other sensors to look and do the real targeting.

There , you are given some clues but you don ‘t seem to take them onboard , do you ?

I’m merely looking at what’s being stated and such claims could be interpreted multiple ways if you aren’t totally blinded and believe there is just one way to really read it.

They talk about three ways but they name only two : the pod and a third part (AWACS) . What do you think is the third mean ? 😉

They in fact name all three, the first one is manual input of target coordinates.

You responded with :
“”Did the French apparently sit in the radar operating centers to make such a claim?“”
The answer to your question is within the quote itself :

It isn’t.

That ‘s a negative , it doesn ‘t make it an ELINT system . Getting a bearing on a ground target within one degree of accuracy (or less) does NOT make a RWR an ELINT system , far from it in fact . Getting a visual and tone warning inside the cockpit as well as a bearing on the threat is the usual RWR ‘s job . To do ELINT , you need something a little bit better than a RWR , you need a whole system capable to do a proper EM mapping and you want the system to tell the other aircraft ‘s systems what ‘s going on and to tell them to act accordingly . This is called EMCON (EMission CONtrol) and is only used so far (AFAIK) by the F-22 and the Rafale . It is a part of the low obvservable concept by the way .

EMCON is actually emission control to minimize your own RF emissions, not cueing other sensors. THAT’S what EMCON is all about. And you are wrong if you believe that the stated platforms are the only ones to do EMCON and what the F-22 does is certainly above what other platforms do as far as EMCON is concerned.

DASS does NOT do that .
I said that Spectra had twice the range of DASS (the numbers are from both official sites and should be well known by now) but Spectra also cover twice the bandwidth range of DASS (80MHz-40GHz for Spectra , 100MHz-18GHz for DASS) . If one wants to go into technical “details”

Both is bull and the fact that you believe that ranging emitters can be done with interferometry only and that you aren’t even sure whether a system like DASS provides azimuth bearing is more than telling. Better don’t get into the technicals, as you don’t even know the basics.

Now , if we start talking about jamming techniques and how those are generated to evade , fool or hide from the adverse emiter(s) , Spectra could teach a couple of nice things to DASS 😀 Of course , the later would need some upgrades before to archive the same results .

I doubt you have any serious clues about the jamming systems employed by either suite so such claims are at best speculation, if not utterly delusional wishful thinking.

While DASS also has some capabilities in basic ELINT because of its own qualities , it is NOT an ELINT system .

That’s the only part I could agree with, but it’s once again off topic, but you are apparently incapable to stay on topic and discuss either aircraft without bringing up the other…